Journals / InTraders Uluslararası Ticaret Akademik Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 9 Issue: 1

Causality Analysis Between the Net Error and Omission Component and Turkiye's Foreign Trade Balance: 1990-2024 Period

Mustafa Kavacık(NECMETTİN ERBAKAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-3782-8154
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that there is unidirectional causality from foreign trade balance to NEO item, but not vice versa.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this paper is to investigate the significance of the "net errors and omissions" (NEO) component in Turkiye's balance-of-payments for 1990 to 2024 and its relation to the foreign trade balance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These findings imply that the NEO item does not function as an active factor in shaping the foreign trade performance, but as a "follower" vis-à-vis the foreign trade balance.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate that there is unidirectional causality from foreign trade balance to NEO item, but not vice versa.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Foreign Trade Balance · Net Errors and Omissions · Toda Yamamoto Causality Test

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the significance of the "net errors and omissions" (NEO) component in Turkiye's balance-of-payments for 1990 to 2024 and its relation to the foreign trade balance. Although the NEO item is theoretically considered a statistical adjustment for measurement errors, timing differences, and data incompleteness, the permanence and positive sign of this item in Turkiye have led to speculation about the existence of covert capital flows. This study answers the question if the NEO item is merely a reflection of statistical discrepancies or if it reflects changes in foreign trade dynamics. In methodology, the Toda-Yamamoto causality technique was used for annual data, and the analysis was performed using EViews. The results indicate that there is unidirectional causality from foreign trade balance to NEO item, but not vice versa. These findings imply that the NEO item does not function as an active factor in shaping the foreign trade performance, but as a "follower" vis-à-vis the foreign trade balance. As a rule, the NEO is considered as a mere statistical adjustment item on the reactive side and not as a driver on the main side of macroeconomic analysis, and also an indicator that reflects structural transformation in Turkiye’s statistics and exposes inconsistencies. In conclusion, this study gives new empirical evidence for Turkiye by revealing that the trade balance-NEO item causal relationship is unidirectional (from the trade balance to NEO), in other words, NEO acts as a result variable, not as a determinant of the foreign trade balance.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kavacık, M. (2026). Causality Analysis Between the Net Error and Omission Component and Turkiye's Foreign Trade Balance: 1990-2024 Period. InTraders Uluslararası Ticaret Akademik Dergisi, Volume: 9 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.55065/intraders.1894388

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  1. Akbaş, Y. E., Şentürk, M., & Sancar, C. (2014). The relationship between capital flows and current deficit: evidence from Turkey. Indian Journal of Finance, 8(11), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2014/v8i11/71693
  2. Akçay, Ü., & Güngen, A. R. (2019). The making of Turkey’s 2018–2019 economic crisis (IPE Working Paper No. 120). Institute for International Political Economy (IPE). https://www.ipe-berlin.org/fileadmin/institut-ipe/Dokumente/Working_Papers/ipe_working_paper_120.pdf
  3. Aydın, M. F., Başkaya, Y. S., & Demiroğlu, U. (2015). Türkiye’de ihracatın ithalatı karşılama oranı üzerine ampirik bir analiz. Iktisat Isletme ve Finans, 30(354), 1-10. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/74adb1f9-d0e0-443b-af64-dfa2a74bd9a1/EN1408eng.pdf?CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-74adb1f9-d0e0-443b-af64-dfa2a74bd9a1-m3fw5jS&MOD=AJPERES
  4. Blomberg, S. B., Hess, G. D., & Orphanides, A. (2004). The macroeconomic consequences of terrorism. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(5), 1007–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2004.04.001
  5. Cerutti, E., Claessens, S., & Rose, A. K. (2017). How important is the global financial cycle? Evidence from capital flows (No. w23699). National Bureau of Economic Research, https://www.bis.org/publ/work661.pdf
  6. Collin, M. (2019). Illicit financial flows: concepts, measurement, and evidence. World Bank Research Observer, 35(1), 44–86. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/409341624542914243/pdf/Illicit-Financial-Flows-Concepts-Measurement-and-Evidence.pdf
  7. Cuddington, J. T. (1986). Capital flight: Estimates, issues, and explanations (Vol. 58). Princeton, NJ: International Finance Section, Department of Economics, Princeton University, http://ies.princeton.edu/pdf/S58.pdf
  8. Çakal, E. (2019). Türkiye’de cari açığın sürdürülebilirliği: ihracat ve ithalat arasındaki ilişkinin ekonometrik bir analizi (2002-2016), Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü İktisat Anabilim Dalı Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Aydın.
  9. Çakmaklı, B. M. (2025). Inflation, exchange rate and foreign trade: Long and short run relationships in the Turkish economy. InTraders International Trade Academic Journal, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.55065/intraders.1660803
  10. Çıplak, U. (2005). Ödemeler dengesinde “Net Hata ve Noksan” kalemi üzerine bir değerlendirme. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası. https://www.tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/01c7bdcc-a979-4773-a4d4-3b68b7be530b/Net%2BHata%2Bve%2BNoksan.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
  11. Demir, M. A. (2020). Türkiye’nin İhracat ve İthalat Kompozisyonunun Dış Ticaret Dengesi Üzerine Etkisi: Ab-15 Ülkeleri İçin İki Yönlü Panel Analizi. Balıkesir Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(44), 887-909, https://doi.org/10.31795/baunsobed.731693
  12. Ding, L. S., & Tang, T. C. (2017) ‘Net Errors and Omissions’ of balance of payments and its sustainability: a survey of literature, Economics Bulletin, 37(4), 2753-2766.
  13. Ding, L. S., & Tang, T. C. (2019). Sustainability of ‘Net Errors and Omissions’ of balance of payments – with global results. Labuan Bulletin of International Business and Finance, 17(2), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.51200/lbibf.v17i2.2535
  14. Eğilmez, M. (2012). Net Hata ve Noksan. https://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2012/05/net-hata-ve-noksan.html
  15. Eğilmez, M. (2013). Net Hata ve Noksan'ın Açıklanması Gerekir. https://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2013/12/net-hata-ve-noksann-acklanmas-gerekir.html
  16. Emeç, A. S., Özdemir, D., & Kaplan, F. (2023). Net hata ve noksan kalemi ile reel efektif döviz kur endeksi arasındaki ilişki: Türkiye üzerine bir inceleme. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 38(3), 670-685. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1167345
  17. Ferretti, G. M. M., & Razin, A. (1999). Current account deficits and capital flows in East Asia and Latin America: are the early nineties different from the early eighties? In Changes in Exchange Rates in Rapidly Developing Countries: Theory, Practice, and Policy Issues (p. 57–108). University of Chicago Press.
  18. Global Financial Integrity (GFI). (2019). Illicit financial flows to and from 148 developing countries: 2006–2015 (GFI Report). Global Financial Integrity. https://gfintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/IFF-Report-2019_11.18.19.pdf
  19. IMF — Committee on Balance of Payments Statistics (BOPCOM). (2019). Analysis of net errors and omissions (BOPCOM—19/14). International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2019/pdf/19-14.pdf
  20. İzgi, F. (2021). Türkiye’de enflasyon ve dış ticaret ilişkisi: nedensellik testleri, Uluslararası Lisansüstü Çalışmalar Kongresi (IGSCONG’21), 25-28 Haziran, Online Sunum, Erişim adresi: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=tr&user=no3IlkUAAAAJ&citation_for_view=no3IlkUAAAAJ:YsMSGLbcyi4C
  21. Kar, D., & Freitas, S. (2012). Illicit financial flows from Developing Countries: 2001-2010. Washington, DC: Global Financial Integrity, https://transparency.org.kw.au-ti.org/upload/books/228.pdf
  22. Kaya, A. I., & Çiçekçi, C. (2023). Structural transformation and sources of growth in Turkey, WIDER Working Paper, No. 2023/71, ISBN 978-92-9267-379-6, The United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), Helsinki, https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2023/379-6
  23. Keşap, D., & Sandalcılar, A. R. (2021). Net hata ve noksan hesabı belirleyicilerinin analizi: Türkiye örneği. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (32), 149-168. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.934498
  24. Kohler, K. (2022). Capital flows and geographically uneven economic dynamics: A monetary perspective. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 54(8), 1510-1531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X221120823
  25. Kubelec, C. & Sa, F. G., (2010). The geographical composition of national external balance sheets: 1980-2005, Bank of England Working Paper No. 384, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1577143
  26. Mensah, A.C. & Okyere, E. (2020). Causality analysis on export and economic growth nexus in Ghana. Open Journal of Statistics, 10, 872–888. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2020.105051
  27. OECD (2021), OECD economic surveys: Turkey 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2cd09ab1-en
  28. Oğuz, Y. A. (2024). Türkiye’deki son beş yıllık dış ticaretin ülke gruplarına göre incelenmesi. Scientific And Academic Research (ISSN: 2980-308X), 3(2), 281–290. https://e-scar.com/index.php/pub/article/view/37
  29. Önen, M. A. C., & Meral, Y. (2022). Dollarization’s effects in Turkey economy. InTraders International Trade Academic Journal, 4(2), 72–106. https://doi.org/10.55065/intraders.1058509
  30. Raza, H. & Zoega, G. (2019). From a capital account surplus to a current account deficit. In: Aliber, R., Zoega, G. (eds) The 2008 Global Financial Crisis in Retrospect. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12395-6_10
  31. Siranova, M., & Tiruneh, M. W. (2018). Exploding net errors and omissions as a capital flight phenomenon: the case of Slovakia. Applied Economics, 50(16), 1866–1884. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1380288
  32. Siranova, M., Tiruneh, M. W., & Fisera, B. (2021). Creating the illicit capital flows network in Europe–do the net errors and omissions follow an economic pattern?. International Review of Economics & Finance, 71, 955-973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.10.020
  33. Siranova, M. (2024). Statistical omissions as the stabilizing factor of net foreign assets in EU countries. International Economics, 178, 100485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inteco.2024.100485
  34. Şahin, S. (2022). Net hata ve noksan hesabına bakış: seçilmiş ülkelere yönelik analiz (1980-2018). İktisat Politikası Araştırmaları Dergisi - Journal of Economic Policy Researches, 9(1), 103-120. https://doi.org/10.26650/JEPR1020460
  35. TCMB. (2016), Ödemeler dengesi ve uluslararası yatırım pozisyonu raporu, 2016-IV. Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası, https://tcmb.gov.tr/wps/wcm/connect/3941a65e-d6f1-473a-b5a9-78a520a79580/ODRapor_20164.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE-3941a65e-d6f1-473a-b5a9-78a520a79580-m5lXFs4
  36. Temiz, D. (2009). Gümrük birliği ile birlikte Türkiye’nin dış ticaretinde yapısal değişimler oldu mu?. Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 115-138, https://doi.org/10.1501/Avraras_0000000064
  37. TUIK (2025). Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri Aralık 2024, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=D%C4%B1%C5%9F-Ticaret-%C4%B0statistikleri-Aral%C4%B1k-2024-53538&dil=1
  38. Tunçsiper, B., & Rençber, E. Z. (2017). Dış ticaret ve ekonomik büyüme arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisi: Türkiye örneği. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 3(2), 619–630. https://doi.org/10.24289/ijsser.270501
  39. Yılmaz, E. G., & Kahveci, Ş. (2024). Does the misuse of net errors and omissions arise from a corruption culture?, Journal of International Studies, 17(4), 150-162. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2024/17-4/9